Generally, the need to monitor, control, record and provide detailed records of the usage of a telephone system in a controlled institutional environment is well recognized. It is common to utilize a controlled telephone system capable of monitoring outgoing telephone connections in many types of institutional environments, such as, but not limited to, penal institutions, military institutions, hospitals, schools, businesses, or specific types of government institutions. The reasons for monitoring and controlling institutional telephone systems are evident. To prevent potential called parties from receiving unwanted or even harassing telephone calls, the institutions must restrict or block access to outbound telephone lines. Otherwise, individuals who do not want to be contacted, for instance, by an individual in a penal institution, face the risk of being harassed by an inmate.
Therefore, it is imperative for many institutions to utilize a communication system that provides an accurate control means for administrators to block calls made by an individual responsible to a party unwilling to accept those calls.
Providing telephone systems in specific types of highly restricted institutions, such as in penal institutions, results in the consideration of numerous additional complicating factors. Generally, outbound communication means in penal institutions are heavily regulated by the government. Therefore, communication systems implemented in penal institutions or similar facilities must meet greater security requirements often mandated by regulatory bodies affiliated with the county, state, or federal institution. Thus, the communication system used in a regulated institution must employ unique functions often unnecessary in other types of institutions.
In its most general form, a penal institution's telephone system utilizes a call processor to approve and place a call, surveillance equipment or monitoring equipment, and a recording device for evidencing the conversation. Generally, these simple systems are not equipped to restrict an inmate from calling any individual. However, it is preferable for the call system devices now employed in such institutions to have the capability to thwart an inmate from calling certain specific individuals or types of individuals. Without the necessary constraints on an inmate's use of the telephone system, inmates have often harassed outside parties or individuals. For example, it is generally preferred that an inmate should not be able to place a telephone call to the prosecutor who prosecuted the inmate's case or another attorney responsible for the sentencing of the inmate. In another example, it may be preferred that an inmate be prevented from contacting the victim of the inmate's crime or witnesses from the inmate's case.
It has also been documented that inmates have used previous penal institution call systems to perpetrate additional criminal activities such as fraudulent schemes or specific criminal conspiracies. Specifically, inmates have been known to arrange credit card fraud attempts, the smuggling of contraband into the facility, and have even been known to arrange escape attempts over the penal institution's telephone system.
In addition, individuals who, at one point, willingly receive calls from an inmate may later decide not to receive further calls from that inmate, or may desire to restrict the time that an inmate may call them. Therefore, it is critical in an efficient penal institution to carefully monitor all outgoing telephone calls making a regulated penal institution telephone system a necessity.
Therefore, a required feature of a telephone management system for a penal institution or similar facility is a means for restricting calls placed by a user (e.g., an inmate). It is well documented that inmates often try to harass individuals related to their arrest or confinement, such as judges, prosecutors or witnesses, etc., through telephonic communications. Penal institutions have attempted to prevent this by restricting the telephone numbers each inmate is able to access. For example, a system may utilize a PIN or other identification means to access a list of telephone numbers that the inmate may not call, or alternatively, the system may access a list of numbers that the inmate is authorized to connect to (i.e., the inmate can only call the numbers appearing on the list). Telephone numbers placed on the restricted list can include any individual related to the conviction (e.g., the arresting police officer, the prosecuting attorney, etc.), while telephone numbers placed on the permitted list may be, for example, close family relatives. The system may also limit the amount of time each inmate/user is permitted to conduct each outbound telephone call through the system. Furthermore, restrictions may be regularly updated. For example, if an inmate misbehaves, the inmate's telephone privileges may be further limited or revoked completely.
In order to alleviate some of the problems and concerns discussed herein, many penal institutions have implemented certain task-specific advanced systems. Generally, these “advanced” systems known in the art comprise several features.
For example, it is known in current systems to, employ permanent call blocking. Specifically, it is known in the art to block an inmate or group of inmates from dialing certain telephone numbers. Most systems also prevent inmates from talking directly to live operators. This prevents inmates from requesting that the operator forward a call or provide additional telephone numbers allowing the inmates to harass or locate additional parties. Furthermore, current systems block “1-800,” “1-900” and other like telephone numbers including toll-free and pay-to-dial telephone numbers. In addition certain institutions may elect to block country codes, specific area codes, or other third-party numbers.
Current systems known in the art may also utilize a feature commonly referred to as “selective” call blocking. As discussed, “selective” call blocking may be employed to thwart inmates from establishing a connection with a selected group of individuals (i.e., with the home telephone of prison guards, wardens, indictment witnesses, trial witnesses, police officers, judges, etc.). It is also foreseeable that the telephone numbers of the family members of these specific individuals may also be blocked.
Some current systems also limit the use of specific long-distance carriers. This feature proves useful in limiting unnecessary costs incurred by employing alternating carriers.
Several current systems utilize features commonly referred to as “flash hook” prevention or “click” and “pop” prevention modes. These systems prevent inmates from extending the current outgoing telephone call and entering a new telephone call with a new number without fully terminating the original telephone call. For example, this prevents an inmate from utilizing common call forwarding features and the like.
In addition, some current institutional telephone systems electronically or manually disable the keypad after a telephone number is dialed and the telephone call is connected. This feature prevents inmates from interacting with telephone games and lotteries, and in certain older systems, prevents the inmate from achieving an unrestricted dial tone.
Another common feature employed by institutional systems is three-way call prevention. This feature prevents an inmate from instructing the called party to bridge the telephone call to another telephone number.
Other known systems in the art may exhibit other regulatory features. For example, generally, telephone communication systems allow an institution to limit the duration of a telephone call and/or to limit the cost of the telephone call. These types of features further allow a facility to customize the telephone call systems thereby preventing unrecoverable expenditures.
Certain features discussed herein are present in several prior art references. For example, one system known in the art exemplifies the need for a control management and monitoring system in institutional settings. The system discloses controlling, monitoring, recording and reporting telephone communications. The system deals primarily with the identification of a user through use of a PIN and restricting telephone communications through a profile accessed by the PIN. The system further contemplates means for monitoring and recording communications. For instance, the system includes a feature called “GOTU”, where a called party enters digits associated with the letters G-O-T-U (4688) in order to prohibit calls from that user in the future. The called party is also provided other options, such as whether a message is played to the inmate in further calls. In addition, a called party may elect to refuse future calls from anyone at the institution, where the restriction is sent to other related institutions. However, the system only operates at a facility level, and does not describe a central monitoring site. Calls that are blocked are blocked at the facility level, and the system fails to implement a central verification of potentially blocked telephone numbers.
In view of the foregoing, clearly there exists a need for a method and apparatus for managing an institution's telephone call system. Furthermore, clearly there exists a need for a telephone call monitoring system for a penal institutions or similar facilities that addresses the increased concerns related to the placement of unwanted or even harassing calls to certain individuals. In particular, there exists a need in the art to provide a computer-based telecommunication system with the capacity to allow an institution and a central facility to cooperate in order to control access to certain called parties.